The alteration of the selection criteria to ensure the selection of the most eminent candidates with a higher level of proficiency and skill in their respective fields was rational and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Bihar Vikas Mission and the State.

2. These three appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 5th October, 2016 passed in CWJC No. 12822 of 2016 and other analogous cases whereby the learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the results of the recruitment carried out by the respondents in respect of certain posts of Associates the qualifications whereof were advertised on 23rd February, 2016 for achieving the aims and objects of the Bihar Vikas Mission, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The appellants’ grievance is that in spite of having been successful in the recruitment process, they have not been finally selected as the respondents proceeded to introduce a new criteria of a minimum cut-off marks to be achieved by the candidates in their respective categories during interview. This criteria according to the appellants was not part of the advertisement nor was it known to either the candidates nor did it exist prior to finalization of the interview of the candidates. It is only at the time of the preparation of the results by the selection committee that this criteria was introduced for the purpose of eliminating candidates on the criteria of not having attained the minimum of the marks the cut-off whereof was prescribed after the interview had been held and the recruitment process was over. In short, the submission raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants is that the rules of the game have been altered after the game had been played resulting in an arbitrary elimination of the appellants who otherwise stood selected in order of their merit as per the procedure prescribed under the advertisement which did not contain any minimum cut-off marks to be obtained by a candidate during interview.

4. For this, the learned counsel for the appellants have heavily relied on the terms and conditions of the interview and the factual assertion made in paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and sworn by Shri Neelkamal dated 30th September, 2016 where according to the appellants, the respondents have come out with a reason to support their decision of introducing the cut-off marks in the interview which according to the appellants was impermissible and is even not reflected in the decision taken on 1st July, 2016. Learned counsel for the appellants have invited the attention of the Court to the judgment in the case of K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. delivered on 15th February, 2008 reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 to substantiate their submissions. It has been further contended that even though the said judgment is under reference before a Larger Bench in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors vs. Rajasthan High Court and Ors. delivered on 20th March, 2013 reported in (2013) 4 SCC 540, yet the issue raised in the aforesaid reference would not be affecting the case of the appellants inasmuch as in the present case the rules of the game have admittedly been altered after the Selection Committee process attained its finality with the conclusion of the interview. It is therefore submitted that the reference made to the Larger Bench would not be an impediment in proceeding to consider this case where on the admitted facts the respondents have introduced the criteria after the selection process was over and which now stands explained by them in paragraph 18 of the counter affidavit referred to hereinabove. It is urged that the learned Single Judge has completely ignored to consider this aspect of the matter and has committed an error in relying on the judgment in the case of Yogesh Yadav vs. Union of India reported in (2013) 14 SCC 623.

5. It is also on record that a Division Bench of this Court explored the possibility of extending benefits keeping in view the status and qualification of the appellants by calling upon th